Shri Vishnu Rice Mill Vs. Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. - (High Court of Allahabad) (22 Nov 2018)
Burden was strictly on Assessee to establish its entitlement to scheme of exemption
The present revision has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by Tribunal. Tribunal had rejected Assessee's appeal claiming exemption under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. Learned counsel for the Assessee submits, in the first place undisputedly, the Assessee had set up a new rice mill unit against total investment of Rs. 2,51,000. The investment made in the two disputed machinery being electric motors was of Rs. 41,000 only. There being no dispute to the fact that, the Assessee had set up a new unit and there being further no dispute as to the balance investment of Rs. 2,10,000, the exemption should have been allowed to the Assessee. Issue involved in present case is whether the machines have actually been purchased by the Assessee or not having regard to the documents which are available on record.
The burden was strictly on the Assessee to establish its entitlement to exemption. Only if the Assessee was found to fall within the four corners of the scheme of exemption, a liberal approach may become available for the remaining purpose. In view of the specific finding recorded by this Court to the effect that, the investment of Rs. 41,000 was not negligible in the context of total investment of Rs. 2,51,000, the Tribunal has not erred in recording the finding to that effect. Once the Tribunal was rejecting the entire claim made by the Assessee, with respect to both the disputed machineries, it was never open to the Tribunal to record a finding contrary to that recorded by this Court.
Then, as to the objection that, no fresh inquiry was conducted by the Tribunal, this Court had restricted the proceedings before the Tribunal to the material already available before it. This restriction was specifically placed before the Tribunal for the purpose of determining the purchase of the machinery claimed by the Assessee. To that extent, therefore, the Tribunal has not erred in allowing any fresh material to arise.
As to the documents that were available before the Tribunal, the Tribunal took note of the bill relied upon by the Assessee but has not accepted the same in view of the other material and evidence that was available chiefly in the shape of inquiry report of the Assessing Officer of the year 1993 wherein it was found recorded that the selling dealer was non-existent.
As to the alternative plea set up by the Assessee as to the entitlement of exemption against purchases made from an unregistered dealer, it is seen that such a case was never set up by the Assessee on facts. A plea to that nature would essentially be have to be specifically set up at the appropriate stage before the fact finding authority. In the facts of the present case, no such plea had been ever raised. It therefore does not become available to the Assessee at this stage. There is no principle if the identity of the registered dealer/seller is not disclosed or established by the Assessee, benefit may be given treating that purchase to be of new machinery made from unregistered dealers. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim made by the Assessee. Consequently, the revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Tags : EXEMPTION DENIAL VALIDITY